Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Ann Elsom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ann Elsom

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not appear to comply to WP:N notability guidelines Phanachet (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance she does appear to meet WP:ANYBIO as someone included in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, but turns out that the publication makes a conscious effort to include a range of ordinary people as well. There is no claim of significance here or in her dictionary entry. This is a weak keep at best. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only justification for a keep is that she included in DoNZB. More evidence that that criteria is flawed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note that the NZ National Library has archived some of her papers (or ferns)[1], and I think this is her in the Cyclopedia of New Zealand (1903). Inclusion in two national dictionaries ought to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Also a reminder that, in that era, she may have been referred to as Mrs. Edwin Elsom or Mrs. E. Elsom in contemporary records. pburka (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not one of the representative bios (as explained in the DNZB article). There have been dozens of AfDs of DNZB entries and they have all been kept. Clearly, having an entry gives inherent notability. Schwede 66 07:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as consensus has previously to keep articles on ‘ordinary’ people in DNZB.Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.